B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

David Lim wrote:Anyway I was saying that "ἠγάπησεν" has the same meaning regardless of whether it is used with its cognate noun or not.

I realize that's your opinion. That's pretty clear. What's not entirely clear how well you understand what we're saying about the difference in Aktionsart (also known as actionality, lexical aspect, situation type, procedural characteristics, Vendlerian classifications, etc.). In English, "love" is a state verb. In Greek, however, ἀγαπάω can refer to a state or an activity, depending on context, as BDAG and other lexica indicate.

Due to your heavy reliance in this thread on English paraphrases that acknowledge only stative meanings for ἀγαπάω (including the formulations "had love for" and "felt love for"), it sounds like you are assuming that English "love" and Greek ἀγαπάω must be equivalent even in terms of Aktionsart. This is a mistake, and the best way to avoid this mistaken assumption is to consult an appropriate lexicon, such as BDAG, and look at the range of meanings the verb has.

Thanks! I know that "to love" and "αγαπαν" are not equivalent in all usages; let me use Greek instead then. I was referring to the equivalence between:(1) "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ειχεν εν ημιν" / "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ηγαπησεν ημας"(2) "ινα αγαπην εχητε εν αλληλοις" / "ινα υμεις αγαπατε αλληλους"Because of these (taken from the NT with minor modifications) I said that I think the accusative cognate noun essentially makes no difference in meaning. Furthermore I believe that the use of the cognate noun actually makes the verb more clearly denote a feeling/attitude of love rather than an activity. Or do you have any examples from Greek literature where such a construction was used and clearly cannot refer to a state?

David Lim wrote:Thanks! I know that "to love" and "αγαπαν" are not equivalent in all usages; let me use Greek instead then. I was referring to the equivalence between:(1) "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ειχεν εν ημιν" / "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ηγαπησεν ημας"(2) "ινα αγαπην εχητε εν αλληλοις" / "ινα υμεις αγαπατε αλληλους"Because of these (taken from the NT with minor modifications) I said that I think the accusative cognate noun essentially makes no difference in meaning. Furthermore I believe that the use of the cognate noun actually makes the verb more clearly denote a feeling/attitude of love rather than an activity.

Maybe you could point to where these were taken from. And also explain why these examples make you think this. I don't see what they contribute.

David Lim wrote:Or do you have any examples from Greek literature where such a construction was used and clearly cannot refer to a state?

2 Sam 13:15; John 17:26; Ephesians 2:4. You're the only one who doesn't think it isn't clear.

I've already argued that the addition of the definite object to this normally atelic predicate makes it telic (and thus not a state). And as far as I've seen "emphatic" cognate accusatives are always indefinite. There's no easy way to search for emphatic cognate accusative, but I do have a few dozen grammars to look through for their examples: always indefinite. The few instances of definite objects that could be taken as emphatic are invariably those that already modify telic predicates, and are thus irrelevant to the question. Suffice to say, emphasis doesn't solve the issue. If this was merely emphatic. We should have an indefinite ἀγάπην, like we do with these other stative predicates:

Matt 2:10 wrote:ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα

Mark 4:41 wrote:ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν

The non-emphatic "inner object" definite accusative is fundamentally the opposite construction as the English noun-incorporation construction.

David Lim wrote:Thanks! I know that "to love" and "αγαπαν" are not equivalent in all usages; let me use Greek instead then. I was referring to the equivalence between:(1) "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ειχεν εν ημιν" / "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ηγαπησεν ημας"(2) "ινα αγαπην εχητε εν αλληλοις" / "ινα υμεις αγαπατε αλληλους"Because of these (taken from the NT with minor modifications) I said that I think the accusative cognate noun essentially makes no difference in meaning.

I don't understand the logic here. I appears that you've back-translated your English sentences into Greek (perhaps using models from the NT), and asserted that they are equivalent. That's not an argument. No reason is given for this supposed equivalence. Nothing has changed by your use of (unaccented) Greek--it still looks very much like you're still thinking about Greek in terms of English.

I hate to repeat myself but the way to avoid assuming that English==Greek is to consult a good lexicon, such as BDAG, and study the range of usage in its entry.

David Lim wrote:Thanks! I know that "to love" and "αγαπαν" are not equivalent in all usages; let me use Greek instead then. I was referring to the equivalence between:(1) "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ειχεν εν ημιν" / "η αγαπη ην ο θεος ηγαπησεν ημας"(2) "ινα αγαπην εχητε εν αλληλοις" / "ινα υμεις αγαπατε αλληλους"Because of these (taken from the NT with minor modifications) I said that I think the accusative cognate noun essentially makes no difference in meaning. Furthermore I believe that the use of the cognate noun actually makes the verb more clearly denote a feeling/attitude of love rather than an activity.

Maybe you could point to where these were taken from. And also explain why these examples make you think this. I don't see what they contribute.

The contexts of these imply that the phrases I gave in (1) and (2) respectively are essentially equivalent.

MAubrey wrote:

David Lim wrote:Or do you have any examples from Greek literature where such a construction was used and clearly cannot refer to a state?

2 Sam 13:15; John 17:26; Ephesians 2:4. You're the only one who doesn't think it isn't clear.

I think there might be a misunderstanding. At the beginning I said that I thought the Greek verb "αγαπαν" denoted an attitude/feeling, and I said that I don't know whether it should be classified as a state or activity, seeing that it seemed to be neither. I used the term "state" only because Stephen classified it to be so. So let me restate my question:Do you have examples where the construction with the definite cognate accusative noun clearly cannot refer to the attitude/feeling but must refer to some accompanying action as well?

MAubrey wrote:I've already argued that the addition of the definite object to this normally atelic predicate makes it telic (and thus not a state). And as far as I've seen "emphatic" cognate accusatives are always indefinite. There's no easy way to search for emphatic cognate accusative, but I do have a few dozen grammars to look through for their examples: always indefinite. The few instances of definite objects that could be taken as emphatic are invariably those that already modify telic predicates, and are thus irrelevant to the question. Suffice to say, emphasis doesn't solve the issue. If this was merely emphatic. We should have an indefinite ἀγάπην, like we do with these other stative predicates:

Let me explain the examples you gave in a different way, because I don't think the issue is with telicity:[Matt 2:10] ἰδόντες δὲ τὸν ἀστέρα ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα. [Mark 4:41] καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν, καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους· Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;In both cases the noun phrase does not refer to any definite entity and hence must be without the article. Also, notice that these constructions with the indefinite cognate nouns are only used when the cognate noun is modified, in these cases by an adjective to specify the kind of joy/fear. I believe there will not be any instance of the bare unmodified cognate noun used as an object of a verb, for the reason that it becomes not only semantically redundant but grammatically redundant. In contrast we have:[1 Pet 3:14] ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι. τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, In this case the noun phrase refers to a definite entity and hence is with the article. In normal idiomatic English, we can't just repeat the cognate noun to convey that meaning, but have to use something like "do not fear what they fear" or "do not have the fear that they have". Greek, on the other hand, allows one to use the cognate as an object of the verb, thus we get all these examples. The use of the article is determined by definiteness and, in my view, not telicity at all. Also, when the noun phrase is the main clause, relative clauses involving the verb merely modify the noun phrase and do not affect the use of the article with the noun phrase.

Consider the following:

[Matt 7:2] ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.[John 7:24] μὴ κρίνετε κατ’ ὄψιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε.You might say that these are telic and don't count, but based on the context all are referring to the kind/manner of judgement rather than the acts of judgement. The first refers to "the kind of judgement that you judge", and the second refers to "the righteous kind of judgement", therefore both are definite and the article is used.

[Mark 7:7] μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· (I know that "διδασκαλίας" is not a direct object of "διδάσκοντες" but it is like one)[Rev 2:14] ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγα, ὅτι ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, ⸀φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι· Here likewise, in the first the teachings being referred to are indefinite and hence the article is not used, whereas the second is referring to the teaching of Balaam and hence the article is used.

Both could be used in the very same context for the very same event, but when there's an articular object NP. The predicate is made telic and thus cannot be either states or activities.

Sorry I don't get what you are referring to by "Both ... when there's an articular object NP.". If you meant to switch the comma and the full-stop, then I agree with your examples, but they only demonstrate the possibility that the resulting verb clause with a definite object is telic, but not that it is impossible for it to remain atelic for some verbs, as I showed above.

David Lim wrote:The contexts of these imply that the phrases I gave in (1) and (2) respectively are essentially equivalent.

They show nothing of the kind.

David Lim wrote:I think there might be a misunderstanding. At the beginning I said that I thought the Greek verb "αγαπαν" denoted an attitude/feeling, and I said that I don't know whether it should be classified as a state or activity, seeing that it seemed to be neither. I used the term "state" only because Stephen classified it to be so. So let me restate my question:Do you have examples where the construction with the definite cognate accusative noun clearly cannot refer to the attitude/feeling but must refer to some accompanying action as well?

Yes. Ephesians 2:4. You're the only person here who doesn't see that.

David Lim wrote:Let me explain the examples you gave in a different way, because I don't think the issue is with telicity:

Well, you're wrong. The issue is entirely about telicity. You just don't understand the data. The use of a referential articular NP necessitates an endpoint. By definition.

David Lim wrote:Also, notice that these constructions with the indefinite cognate nouns are only used when the cognate noun is modified, in these cases by an adjective to specify the kind of joy/fear. I believe there will not be any instance of the bare unmodified cognate noun used as an object of a verb, for the reason that it becomes not only semantically redundant but grammatically redundant.

Red flag! Simply saying that you believe something to be the case isn't sufficient. If you're going to assert it back it up. Here's me backing up my disagreement:Ps53:5 φοβηθήσονται φόβονI could probably find more with time...but I don't really have time right now. This is indefinite and "emphatic" and atelic (again telicity follows directly from definite reference).

David Lim wrote:In normal idiomatic English, we can't just repeat the cognate noun to convey that meaning, but have to use something like "do not fear what they fear" or "do not have the fear that they have". Greek, on the other hand, allows one to use the cognate as an object of the verb, thus we get all these examples. The use of the article is determined by definiteness and, in my view, not telicity at all. Also, when the noun phrase is the main clause, relative clauses involving the verb merely modify the noun phrase and do not affect the use of the article with the noun phrase.

Here's the problem with 1 Peter 3:14: it isn't an example of the construction. It isn't he same as the others. It isn't what the grammarians call an "inner object" accusative. That is, the fear referred to as the object is a separate and distinct fear than the one expressed by the verb. Ephesians 2.4 and the other examples all involve objects that refer to exact same situation as that expressed by the verb. It isn't comparable and isn't relevant. That's why all the translations translate this object NP as a clause: Do not fear what they fear. Also, because "what they fear" is referential, it has an endpoint. It's telic. So even though this isn't an instance of the construction in question. It still fits my claim.

David Lim wrote:Consider the following:

Yes. Let's.

David Lim wrote:[Matt 7:2] ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.[John 7:24] μὴ κρίνετε κατ’ ὄψιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε.You might say that these are telic and don't count, but based on the context all are referring to the kind/manner of judgement rather than the acts of judgement. The first refers to "the kind of judgement that you judge", and the second refers to "the righteous kind of judgement", therefore both are definite and the article is used.

That's true. They don't count. But they don't count for a different reason. It isn't because they're telic (they're both atelic). They don't count because neither of them actually has an object. The first one isn't relevant because it isn't an object, its a dative of manner in PP. The second one is also an adverbial NP. If anything, I'd say this is an instance of elided preposition κατά. This issue is actually discussed by Van Valin & LaPolla (1997, 124). When a referential NP is used with an atelic predicate, you're going to find it, not in direct object position, but in the position of either an oblique argument (2nd object or indirect object) or as an adjunct (like these two examples).

What we should be looking for, if we want relevance is a definite referential object noun phrase.

Κρίνω isn't, by definition, telic. With indefinite, non-referential objects it is an activity and thus atelic, as in: Do not judge so that you might not be judged (Matt 7:1). This is an atelic activity predicate. There is no definable endpoint. But when it takes a definite, referential NP, like: I will judge you by your words (Luke 19:22), then the referential nature of the object necessitates a telic interpretation; necessitates an endpoint.

David Lim wrote:[Mark 7:7] μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· (I know that "διδασκαλίας" is not a direct object of "διδάσκοντες" but it is like one)[Rev 2:14] ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγα, ὅτι ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, ⸀φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι·Here likewise, in the first the teachings being referred to are indefinite and hence the article is not used, whereas the second is referring to the teaching of Balaam and hence the article is used.

Yes. That's right. And Mark 7:7 is non-referential and thus atelic. No endpoint. Likewise, Rev 2:14 is referential and thus it is telic just like we would expect it to be. There's a relationship here, David. You're missing it. Definite reference in object NPs goes hand in hand with telicity. If you have one, you have the other.

David Lim wrote:Both could be used in the very same context for the very same event, but when there's an articular object NP. The predicate is made telic and thus cannot be either states or activities.

Sorry I don't get what you are referring to by "Both ... when there's an articular object NP.". If you meant to switch the comma and the full-stop...[/quote]Yes, those should have been switched.

David Lim wrote:...then I agree with your examples, but they only demonstrate the possibility that the resulting verb clause with a definite object is telic, but not that it is impossible for it to remain atelic for some verbs, as I showed above.

No. You haven't shown that at all. In fact, every example you've provided fits my claim...and it isn't just my claim. I'm not just making things up because I think I see them in the data. I'm talking about broadly recognized linguistic generalizations observed in various languages by linguists from around the world. It's a cross-linguistic claim. Here's who else says it:

David Lim wrote:Also, notice that these constructions with the indefinite cognate nouns are only used when the cognate noun is modified, in these cases by an adjective to specify the kind of joy/fear. I believe there will not be any instance of the bare unmodified cognate noun used as an object of a verb, for the reason that it becomes not only semantically redundant but grammatically redundant.

Red flag! Simply saying that you believe something to be the case isn't sufficient. If you're going to assert it back it up. Here's me backing up my disagreement:Ps53:5 φοβηθήσονται φόβονI could probably find more with time...but I don't really have time right now. This is indefinite and "emphatic" and atelic (again telicity follows directly from definite reference).

Thanks for finding Psa 53:5. Sorry I also have been very busy recently. But when you have time, I would like to see more examples. For Psa 53:5 it seems that the additional adverbial phrase "οὗ οὐκ ἦν φόβος" makes the "φόβον" not redundant because mentally we do associate them as follows: "Where there was previously no fear, there will be fear, which they will have.". So the "φόβον" is somewhat in parallel with the "φόβος" and hence no longer redundant. I don't know how to precisely express what I mean, but I hope this is clearer than "bare unmodified" that I used to describe it earlier.

MAubrey wrote:Here's the problem with 1 Peter 3:14: it isn't an example of the construction. It isn't he same as the others. It isn't what the grammarians call an "inner object" accusative. That is, the fear referred to as the object is a separate and distinct fear than the one expressed by the verb. Ephesians 2.4 and the other examples all involve objects that refer to exact same situation as that expressed by the verb. It isn't comparable and isn't relevant. That's why all the translations translate this object NP as a clause: Do not fear what they fear. Also, because "what they fear" is referential, it has an endpoint. It's telic. So even though this isn't an instance of the construction in question. It still fits my claim.

Okay I get what you mean, though sorry I am not convinced..

MAubrey wrote:

David Lim wrote:[Matt 7:2] ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.[John 7:24] μὴ κρίνετε κατ’ ὄψιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε.You might say that these are telic and don't count, but based on the context all are referring to the kind/manner of judgement rather than the acts of judgement. The first refers to "the kind of judgement that you judge", and the second refers to "the righteous kind of judgement", therefore both are definite and the article is used.

That's true. They don't count. But they don't count for a different reason. It isn't because they're telic (they're both atelic). They don't count because neither of them actually has an object. The first one isn't relevant because it isn't an object, its a dative of manner in PP. The second one is also an adverbial NP. If anything, I'd say this is an instance of elided preposition κατά. This issue is actually discussed by Van Valin & LaPolla (1997, 124). When a referential NP is used with an atelic predicate, you're going to find it, not in direct object position, but in the position of either an oblique argument (2nd object or indirect object) or as an adjunct (like these two examples).

Okay I interpreted Matt 7:2 to have "κρίνετε" taking the implicit object "κρίμα" rather than being modified by "ἐν ᾧ κρίματι", because I took "ἐν ᾧ κρίματι κρίνετε" to then modify "κριθήσεσθε". Since your interpretation differs, let's ignore that example. As for the second, I honestly think the phrase doesn't need any "κατά" to explain it. Why must it be adverbial? I think rather that it refers to "the righteous kind of judgement" in an emphatic way by simply saying "the righteous judgement". And yes I was saying that they are indeed atelic as you said, which is why I brought them up.

MAubrey wrote:

David Lim wrote:[Mark 7:7] μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· (I know that "διδασκαλίας" is not a direct object of "διδάσκοντες" but it is like one)[Rev 2:14] ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγα, ὅτι ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, ⸀φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι·Here likewise, in the first the teachings being referred to are indefinite and hence the article is not used, whereas the second is referring to the teaching of Balaam and hence the article is used.

Yes. That's right. And Mark 7:7 is non-referential and thus atelic. No endpoint. Likewise, Rev 2:14 is referential and thus it is telic just like we would expect it to be. There's a relationship here, David. You're missing it. Definite reference in object NPs goes hand in hand with telicity. If you have one, you have the other.

Okay I see that it is the same point that you made earlier. The reason I am not convinced is that your conclusion is true under the assumption that this dichotomy exists, whereas under my hypothesis it is not necessarily so. And I believe that the below examples do support my claim.

I disagree with your explanation for this one because the endpoint of the life is not in view when the living is conceived, at least for Rom 6:10 and Gal 2:20. Can you give more detailed explanation of why these must be telic, without using the assumption that every definite reference in an object noun phrase must go with a telic verb?

MAubrey wrote:I'm not just making things up because I think I see them in the data. I'm talking about broadly recognized linguistic generalizations observed in various languages by linguists from around the world. It's a cross-linguistic claim. Here's who else says it:[...]There are many others, but they're in (believe it or not) far more obscure books or journals.

Thanks for the references! Though I am sorry that I don't have the time or energy to look them up at the moment. But I always appreciate the discussions we have here!